Sunday, February 28, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

"Love feels no burden, regards not labors, strives toward more than it attains, argues not of impossibility, since it believes that it may and can do all things. Therefore it avails for all things, and fulfils and accomplishes much where one not a lover falls and lies helpless."

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

As the U.S. military begins a major review of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning gay people from openly serving in the military, leaders may want to consult an updated study set for release today that reviews how 25 nations lifted similar bans with relative success.

The Palm Center at the University of California Santa Barbara conducted the extensive review of foreign militaries, including Australia, Canada, Great Britain and Israel -- widely considered major fighting forces by military experts. In each case, the countries successfully lifted any ban in a relative short period of time after vigorous debate and concern for mass resignations by other service members.

As The Eye reported on Monday, civilian and uniformed leadership of the Army and Air Force kick off a week of budget hearings today during which lawmakers are expected to seek their personal opinions on a potential repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." A few members of the military's top brass have already stated a preference for comprehensive studies and feedback similar to the Palm Center report.

Gen. Ray Odierno lent his voice to the debate on Monday by stating that he thinks everyone -- gay and straight -- should be allowed to serve in the military "as long as we are still able to fight our wars." His comments make him the first senior military leader leading in troops in battle to weigh in on a possible repeal.

"No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military," the study concluded. Researchers also found that the 25 nations implemented repeals of a gay ban within four months.

"Swift, decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that the process will go smoothly, while a 'phased-in' implementation can create anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism," the study said. That conclusion runs counter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' stated preference for up to a year to implement a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

And lest you think, "Who cares what other militaries do?", the study said the Pentagon has a long history of studying the experiences of other armed forces. The Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office has conducted research on personnel matters, healthy policy, housing, technology, counterterrorism operations and other matters, according to the report.

Some other interesting conclusions:

• The study also found that none of the 25 countries established separate living facilities for gay troops or established rules that treat them differently than heterosexuals.

• Lifting gay bans did not result in a mass “coming out.” Gay and lesbian troops serve at all levels of the armed forces of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel in combat and non-combat roles as enlisted members and commanders.

• There were no instances of increased harassment of or by gay people as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Independent Democrat from Connecticut, announced Monday that he will sponsor legislation to repeal the military’s ban on openly gay service members.

He won’t be the first; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a fellow member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been the chief advocate for change in the Senate. But Lieberman’s announcement that he wants to lead the charge for a change in law is one of the first signs that it may be possible to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome procedural roadblocks.

Lieberman, a former Democrat who has been closely aligned with, and supported the presidential bid of, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a statement that he “will be proud to be a sponsor of the important effort to enable patriotic gay Americans to defend our national security and our founding values of freedom and opportunity.”

“I have opposed the current policy of preventing gay Americans from openly serving in the military since its enactment in 1993,” Lieberman said in the statement. “To exclude one group of Americans from serving in the armed forces is contrary to our fundamental principles ... and weakens our defenses by denying our military the service of a large group of Americans who can help our cause.”

Sponsoring legislation to allow gays to openly serve in the military would put Lieberman at odds with McCain, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking Republican.

Although McCain in the past said he would be willing to support repeal of the law if military leaders asked for a change, he was not persuaded by testimony from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that the time for change has come. McCain said he was “disappointed” in their testimony and did not see reason to change a policy on gays that seemed to be working.

The Senate could get the 60 votes needed to overcome a potential filibuster if all Democrats vote together, which is no sure thing. Some conservative Democrats have been reluctant to announce where they stand on repeal of the gay ban, and the endorsement of Lieberman — who does not consistently vote with either party — does not necessarily mean other senators will follow his lead, said Senate aides who asked not to be identified.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

WASHINGTON — A comprehensive new study on foreign militaries that have made transitions to allowing openly gay service members concludes that a speedy implementation of the change is not disruptive. The finding is in direct opposition to the stated views of Pentagon leaders, who say repealing a ban on openly gay men and women in the United States armed forces should take a year or more.

The study, “Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer,” is to be released Tuesday by the Palm Center, a research group at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The Palm Center has no official position on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the American law that bans openly gay service members, but the group has become a leading force among advocates for repeal. The principal author of the study is Nathaniel Frank, who also wrote the book “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.”

The 151-page study, which updates existing studies on gay service members in Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries, offers the first broad look at the issue in foreign militaries since Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell” earlier this month.

The report concludes that in foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass “comings out.” The report found that “there were no instances of increased harassment” as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.

In addition, the report says that none of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, and that benefits for gay partners were generally in accordance with a country’s existing benefits for gay and lesbian couples.

On implementation, the study said that most countries made the change swiftly, within a matter of months and with what it termed little disruption to the armed services. Mr. Frank said the study did not look at what happened if the change was implemented gradually because, he said, “I don’t think any of the militaries tried it.”

Mr. Frank’s report cited a 1993 RAND study on the effects of allowing openly gay members to serve in the American military, which concluded that “phased-in implementation might allow enemies of the new policy to intentionally create problems to prove the policy unworkable.” On personnel policy decisions of this nature, the RAND study said, “Any waiting period permits restraining forces to consolidate.”

But Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of United States Central Command who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, joined with other American military leaders when he said Sunday that a lengthy review of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was warranted. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, General Petraeus said that a review currently under way by the Pentagon, which is to include a poll of military attitudes on the change, “is very important to this overall process.” The review, General Petraeus said, “will suggest the policies that could be used to implement a change if it does come to that.”

General Petraeus, who said that allowing openly gay service members in Britain and Israel had in the end been “uneventful,” declined to give his own view on the merits of allowing openly gay members of the United States military. “I support what our secretary and our chairman have embarked on here,” he said, adding that he would offer his own opinion if he was asked in a hearing on Capitol Hill.

On the same program, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012, said that he continued to support “don’t ask, don’t tell” because “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

In addition to becoming my friend, he's also my boss... a unique relationship indeed. He's perhaps the most genuinely accepting person I've ever met. I can talk to him about anything, including Stephen Christopher Harris. He really is like having "a brother from another mother..."

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Corvino: What Marriage Is By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com02.19.2010

An opponent writes, “What’s YOUR definition of marriage? If you’re going to use a word, you need a definition of the word.”

After all, most English speakers can competently use the word “yellow,” but ask them to define the term (without merely pointing to examples) and watch them stammer.

And then try words like “law,” “opinion,” and “game” just for fun. It’s quite possible to have functional knowledge of how to use a term without being able to articulate the boundaries of the relevant concept.

All right, you say, but as someone deeply involved in the marriage debate, surely the Gay Moralist has a definition to offer?

Yes and no. I have definitions to offer, not a definition.

The word “marriage” can refer to many different things: a personal commitment, a religious sacrament, a social institution, a legal status.

And even if we focus on one of those—say, the social institution—there are other challenges. As David Blankenhorn puts it: “There is no single, universally accepted definition of marriage—partly because the institution is constantly evolving, and partly because many of its features vary across groups and cultures.”

Blankenhorn makes this point in his book The Future of Marriage. It’s an interesting concession, since he spends much of the rest of the chapter railing against marriage-equality advocates for offering “insubstantial” and “fluttery” definitions that emphasize personal commitment over marriage’s social meaning.

Not surprisingly, his own definition emphasizes children:

“In all or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived as both a personal relationship and an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are—and are understood by the society to be—emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents.”

Putting aside the odd claim that “marriage is…sexual intercourse” (rather than, say, a context for such intercourse), this is actually a pretty good description of what marriage typically is.

But the “typically” is key. On the very next page, Blankenhorn acknowledges a counterexample (raised by Christian theologians, no less): Marriage can’t be essentially sexual, since if it were, the Virgin Mary’s “marriage” to Joseph would not be a marriage. (And one could point to plenty of contemporary sexless marriages that are nevertheless marriages.)

Moreover, Blankenhorn’s own definition includes the hedge-word “primarily,” acknowledging that marriage has goals beyond providing for children’s needs.

My fellow philosophers are often enamored of analyses that provide “necessary and sufficient conditions” for concepts: definitions that capture all, and only, the members of a class. But I have yet to see anyone on either side of this debate do that for marriage, and I doubt that it’s possible.The definition would have to be broad enough to include unions as disparate as King Solomon’s polygamous household; Elizabeth Taylor’s marriages to her various husbands; my maternal grandparents’ arranged marriage; Bill’s marriage to Hillary; Barack’s marriage to Michelle. It would have to make sense of metaphors such as the claim that nuns are “married” to Christ (traditional profession ceremonies even involved wedding dresses). And yet it couldn’t be so broad as to include just any committed relationship.

Are there necessary conditions for a union’s being a marriage? Sure. For instance, there must be at least two persons. (I say “at least” because polygamous marriages are still marriages, whatever other objections we might have to them.)

Beyond the “at least two persons” requirement, we find a host of features that are typical: mutual care and concern, romantic and sexual involvement, a profession of lifelong commitment, the begetting and rearing of children.

But “typical” does not mean “strictly necessary,” and for any one of these features, it takes very little imagination to think of a genuine marriage that lacks it. A “marriage of convenience” is still a marriage, legally speaking. A childless marriage is still a marriage. A marriage on the brink of divorce is still, for the time being, a marriage.

I am not suggesting that any of these scenarios is ideal. But our opponents’ objection isn’t that same-sex unions aren’t “ideal” marriages. It’s that they’re not marriages AT ALL. And that objection is much harder to sustain when one surveys the various overlapping arrangements—some with children, some without; some intensely romantic; some not—that we call “marriage.”

So what is marriage? For me, the standard vow captures it nicely, though of course not perfectly or completely. These are the words my parents used, and the same words I used with my partner Mark:

Marriage is a commitment “to have and to hold; from this day forward; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish; ‘til death do us part.”

“Fluttery?” Maybe. But real, and important, and good.

***********

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

His upcoming speaking appearances include:

March 2: Missouri State University (Springfield), debate with Glenn Stanton on the existence of God.

March 4: DePauw University, lecture

March 9: St. Olaf College, marriage debate with Glenn Stanton

March 10: University of Lethbridge (AB, Canada), lecture

Check school websites for room and time information. For more about John Corvino, go to www.johncorvino.com.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Comment: So Much Military TrashBy Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • February 16, 2010

Petty Officer Second Class Lewis Breland is waiting to be discharged from the US military after an investigation into his sexuality forced him to come out last year. He confessed his sexual orientation to civilian investigators after rumours began flying around his unit about an alleged sexual partner.

There is no clearer indication that the United States military is behind in the times, clinging desperately to religious and reactionary nonsense, than in the way we treat our homosexual service members as so much military trash.

I've been in the Navy since 2005. In that time, I've been advanced up to Petty Officer Second Class and my record is, to say the least, outstanding. My command is unhappy with having to discharge me, to lose a sailor, and having to tell a hard-working shipmate that they must quit the pursuit of their goals for relentless excellence in the Navy.

While deployed on shore last year, an investigation into my sexuality was launched after rumours began going around my unit. When the civilian investigators asked my sexual orientation (which they can do since they are not military members), I was honest. One would imagine that honesty is something the military would value.

As a matter of fact, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, made it clear that honesty is what is really at stake by asking service members to lie about their sexuality.

“No matter how I look at the issue,” to quote the Admiral directly, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens…For me, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

I soon thereafter received notification that I would be discharged from the military service for revealing my sexuality to interrogators. It's been a booming five years since I decided to join the Navy, and in that time, I've excelled at every turn. What's most grotesque about this situation is the history of the policy against LGBT people in the US military.

The religious right has always had a strangle on America's military affairs, clearly expressed by their lobbying and testimonies in the 1990s concerning the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It's unfortunate that the military should lose so much taxpayer money which has gone into creating outstanding service members; wasted on us because we happen to be attracted to members of our own sex.

For the Navy to discharge decent sailors while we let thieves and drunkards slip through the cracks in times of manpower shortage is no way to keep discipline. My own sexuality has never been a discipline (or any other) issue. This is strictly political. And if you examine the facts; during the Clinton reign in the White House the DADT policy was put in place because of a compromise between the president's desires and the conservative (religious) right who fought hard to keep gays out.

There is absolutely no proof that homosexuality is equal to a breakdown in military discipline or conduct. That there are gays in foxholes is of little doubt; but it seems that if we "know" who they are, it somehow changes the game.

One of the most ridiculous arguments made by the opposition to the current president is that straight service members should not have to live in close quarters with potentially attracted homosexual service members.

To be perfectly honest, serving in today's military, there is no great homophobia within the ranks, no great call for fluxing homosexuals out, and no real fear that you're being "watched in the showers".

They question, “Don't you think that might be uncomfortable for the heterosexual service members?" Oddly enough, in my four years of military service – during which time I have been pretty honest about my sexuality – I have never heard this argument from another active service member. I'm used to hearing it from the conservative media and from ex-military personnel who served a decade ago.

Against other claims that the military is strictly a dictatorship, I would argue that it is more like a business (especially the Navy). And if we can't offer the same civil rights to the people who defend them, then the whole military loses its meaning as a defender of our rights. We are still American citizens and what we do in our homes is our business.

Still, it isn’t right to force people to lie to their comrades about their sexuality, their home-life. In the military, your superiors and your peers are very interested in your life. You can say, “No. Please don’t come over to my house,” and continue to be ridiculously discreet, but it has its own price. If you don’t allow yourself to be honest with the friends you make in the service, then how much more will you hate your job? Suppose we want to go the route that people should keep their sexuality a private matter. Objectively then, married people ought to never mention a spouse, wear a wedding ring, or post pictures of their husbands and wives in their racks or work spaces. I, of course, would never think of stepping on that person's right to disclose the status of their family life because it's unethical (and unreal).

Picture a working office on a ship at sea where four sailors are confined in close quarters for months on end. In their down time, the members joke with each other, share their worries, their dreams, and stories about their family lives. Only one member does not hang a picture of their significant other, does not talk about their love life, does not invite the others over to her house for gatherings. The other office members view her as being generally anti-social. She is a gay sailor under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. It’s wholly unrealistic and we should expect that gay service members are not anti-social and will out themselves to the appropriate people.

While the military surely is not a democracy, it is a conglomeration of nationalities, religions, races, and sexualities. None of these things are equal to breakdowns in military bearing the way that fraternisation is. Fraternisation really does threaten the authority of superiors over their juniors and generally undermines good order and discipline. "Ah, but homosexuality is a break down in authority because it threatens people who aren't quite comfortable with gays in their work and living environments." Well, some people still aren't secure with serving around black people, or white people, or Muslims, or Jews. It's all there. However, people who can't discharge their duties or otherwise have a discrimination problem are promptly dealt with.

I’ve been accused of putting a religious slant on the issue of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. To be honest, the religious right and Clinton's bungling are precisely the reason for the DADT policy. It's perfectly clear to see who lobbied the politicians who fought hard against the bill (Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition, etc). It's as plain as the day is long!

The objective should not be the changing of our core values, but examining them because at their root, they are integrity-bound. To deny members the right to serve because of their honesty is a serious contradiction which is usurping our core values. This behaviour has to stop right now.

I have always proudly served my country's Navy combat team with honour, courage, and commitment. Perhaps, we should consider taking those core values for a spin around reality because integrity certainly is not one of them. Integrity, in the military, will have you fired.

With the president's announced intention to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, there is no better time than now to speak out in support of this noble effort. It is amazing how those in opposition to the president's intentions claim that they are “looking out” for the military. They want to “support the troops and their families (and their values). Are gay troops not troops, after all? Don't we fight, kill, and die for our country the same as heterosexual soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen? Are we not part of the institution that you so claim to support?

It is, of course, not an issue of supporting the troops. It's an issue of oppressing homosexuals. It is an issue of immense bigotry and ignorance which smacks of the opposition to allowing black troops to serve with whites. I am not daring to draw a comparison between gays and blacks in American society, but only their plight. The issues surrounding the two liberation movements are vastly different, however, the arguments and the forums of debate remain the same.

One spokesman in opposition to the president gave a talk on CNN, claiming that Mr Obama has chosen the "wrong time" for this action and is "distracting the US Armed Forces from the war on terrorism".

How can anyone possibly think this is an argument? Integrating open gays into the military, gays who are already serving, will not be a distraction from the war on terror. What has been a distraction from the war on terror is the countless homosexual men and women discharged, wasting countless US taxpayer dollars and harming the integrity of our armed forces.

Finally, if this isn't the right "timing" for this, then may I ask "When is?" because we were at peace in the Clinton era and we still could not get over what most of our global partners have long since put behind them: anti-gay discrimination. It’s evident that conservatives, no matter their language of ‘timing’, are religiously and dogmatically opposed to anything that might advance the freedoms that LGBT people might one day enjoy.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

LONDON, UK - Robert Taylor said he had always been open about being gay. The chief executive of a leading private bank has said that more gay professionals should find the courage to come out at work.

Robert Taylor, the chief of Kleinwort Benson, wrote in the Evening Standard yesterday that he had been frank about his sexuality since the beginning of his career.

Mr Taylor wrote: "I was determined to be open about my sexuality. I did not want to lie or be the subject of gossip.

"I never felt that telling my colleagues about it would be an invitation to bullying. In fact, it was the opposite: I didn't want anyone to embarrass themselves"

He said that throughout his career, he had "paraded" his partner at work events as they figured out how to fit in.

Mr Taylor wrote: "By 2000, I was running the front office of Coutts, a very social bank. During one year I managed 94 client events: I was encouraged to invite my partner to most of them. While the social year was exhausting, I cannot remember one client or staff member being uncomfortable with my sexuality."

He said he did not want to criticise closeted City colleagues but added: "I cannot help but wish that these people had the confidence to get the whole sexuality issue off their chests and move on.

"I work with some of the most intelligent people in the world: I can only say that most are sophisticated enough to have little problem with homosexuality."

Conversely, former BP chief Lord Browne said last week he had remained in the closet for decades because it was "unacceptable" to be gay in business.

Lord Browne, who was outed in 2007 after lying in court about when he met a former lover, told the Sunday Times: "I always say to myself, if I’d come out, I could have done more.”

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

A new CBS News/ New York Times poll finds that the wording of the question is key when it comes to determining whether Americans support allowing gays to serve in the military.

In the poll, 59 percent say they now support allowing "homosexuals" to serve in the U.S. military, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor that. Ten percent say they somewhat oppose it and 19 percent say they strongly oppose it.

But the numbers differ when the question is changed to whether Americans support "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military. When the question is asked that way, 70 percent of Americans say they support gay men and lesbians serving in the military, including 19 percent who say they somewhat favor it. Seven percent somewhat oppose it, and 12 percent strongly oppose it.

When it comes to whether Americans support allowing gays to serve openly, there is also a difference based on the term used. When referred to as "homosexuals," 44 percent favor allowing them to serve openly. When referred to as "gay men and lesbians," the percentage rises to 58 percent.

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama vowed to end the policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military – commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

No matter the term used, support for gays to serve in the military has risen since 1993, when the debate arose early in Bill Clinton's presidency. In 1993, 42 percent said they favored allowing homosexuals to serve, with 21 percent saying they strongly favored it; that compared to 42 percent who opposed allowing them to serve (29 percent strongly). In 1993, 37 percent said they supported allowing homosexuals to serve openly and 56 percent opposed.

However, support is down from one year ago, when 67 percent said they supported allowing homosexuals to serve (46 percent strongly).

********

What this is really about is that it matters what you call things... This is something I learned many years ago in my career as a pastry chef and I've taught about it ever since referring to it as "Chocolate Cake Issues."

Before I was even 20 years old, I was the pastry chef at an exclusive suburban country club outside of Detroit. One of the specialties that I would make for the power elite who were members of the club was a seven layer, three chocolate cake. It was a beautiful and delicious creation of my own that I featured on the pastry cart several times a week. On the pastry cart in the main dining room, it was called "Gâteau au chocolat" and it sold for $4 a slice (1983).

But the lesson was this; the club had a snack bar (actually a beautiful small dining room in a climate controlled building at the 9th green) where each day I also sent the same seven layer, three chocolate cake... At the snack bar it was called "Chocolate Cake" and it sold for $1.50 a slice. Mind you, it was the exact same cake, often I'd simply send one half of the same cake to the main dining room and the other half to the snack bar. One day a member who was the owner of a large network of new car dealerships was in the pastry shop picking up a special order while I was preparing that cake. He asked me how many I made each day and I told him, "Usually only one... I send half to the snack shop and the other half goes on the pastry cart."

When I revealed that fact to the member, he was dumbstruck as he told me he always thought they were different, although he loved them both... I said, "No, the only difference is the name and the price." And just then it occurred to me, "It matters what you call things." Many years later as a management consultant, I taught many a business owner the power of this lesson and I employ it in my work almost everyday... "It matters what you call it."

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

There is no single, standard “definitional argument.” There are, rather, various definitional arguments, and part of the problem is pinning down which one our opponents intend.

In the hope of advancing the debate—or at least of showing that the moving target is indeed moving—I’d like to distinguish, and briefly respond to, four versions. I’ll give them names for convenience:

1. The “Logical Impossibility” Version:

This, in some ways, is the purest definitional argument against same-sex marriage. It is also the silliest. Here’s Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jeffery Ventrella:

“[T]o advocate same-sex ‘marriage’ is logically equivalent to seeking to draw a ‘square circle’: One may passionately and sincerely persist in pining about square circles, but the fact of the matter is, one will never be able to actually draw one.”

And again,

“The public square has no room for square circles, because like the Tooth Fairy, they do not really exist.”

Of course we don’t have room for things that don’t exist….precisely because they don’t exist. Which is why we don’t bother arguing against square circles or passing constitutional amendments banning them. It would be pointless.

By contrast, people fight same-sex marriage because it DOES exist: in five states and various foreign countries. If same-sex marriage really were like a square circle, Ventrella could simply ignore it. That he doesn’t is telling.

2. The “Obscuring Differences” Version:

This version, which is related to the first, states that same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are so different that using the word “marriage” to apply to both would obscure a fundamental distinction in nature. As Maggie Gallagher puts it, “Politicians can pass a bill saying a chicken is a duck and that doesn’t make it true. Truth matters.”

Note that the objection is not that using terms this way would have bad consequences—confusing the butcher, for example—but that it would fail to divide up the world correctly. Even if nobody noticed or cared, such usage would blur a real boundary in nature.

The problem (as I argued previously) is that marriage is a human institution, the boundaries of which are drawn and redrawn for human purposes.

3. The “Bad Consequences” Version:

But what if such redrawing had bad consequences? This, I think, is the real concern driving the definitional arguments. Gallagher, for example, thinks that defining “marriage” to include gays and lesbians would ultimately erode the institution.

David Blankenhorn has similar concerns. Indeed, his own version of the argument makes the consequentialist undercurrent apparent: instead of square circles or duck-chickens, Blankenhorn asks us to imagine what would happen if the word “ballet” were used to refer to all forms of dance.

Of course redefining “ballet” that way would be bad. But that’s because doing so would frustrate human aims. If you go to the theater to see ballet and end up getting Riverdance instead, you’ll likely be upset or disappointed.

Would extending marriage to gays and lesbians frustrate human aims in a similar way? Marriage-equality opponents like Blankenhorn and Gallagher certainly think so. Specifically, they think it would sever marriage from its core function of binding children to their mothers and fathers.

But now it seems that the definitional point is no longer doing any argumentative work. The real objection here is that same-sex marriage harms society. If that’s the objection, let’s focus on it directly.

4. The Constitutional-Law Version:

There is, however, a fourth version of the definitional argument, one specifically related to the constitutional debate.

Legal advocates for marriage equality—such as Ted Olson and David Boies, who are challenging California’s Prop. 8—often argue that gays and lesbians deserve the freedom to marry because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection and due-process guarantees. But if same-sex marriage involves CHANGING the definition of marriage, opponents contend, the Fourteenth-Amendment argument falters.

According to this version of the definitional argument, gays and lesbians are not being denied equal access to an existing institution, they are asking for an existing institution to be re-defined. There may well be good reasons for redefining it. But that is a matter for legislatures to decide, not courts.

This version is more subtle than the others, and addressing it fully requires more space than I have here. But my quick response would be that marriage caselaw over the last four decades suggests that male-female isn’t a defining element in the way this argument requires.

Consider for example Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which affirmed the right of married couples to purchase contraceptives, and Turner v. Safley (1987), which affirmed the right of prisoners to marry. Marriage is defined by its core purposes, and those purposes do not necessarily require (actual or potential) procreation.

The fact is that same-sex couples fall in love and commit their lives to each other for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, until death do they part.

And if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then legally speaking it ought to be treated like a duck.

***********

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit his newly redesigned website at http://www.johncorvino.com/.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

I am tired of being attacked, robbed, and denied equal rights by heterosexual religious bandits who blame same-gender-loving people for their failed marriages. Today is January 27, 2010, and I have just read a statement released by the Associated Press, quoting the founder of a family values think-tank who said (while testifying before the California Supreme Court) that rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.

Most of my life, I have served in worship centers across America in one capacity or another, and I can tell you that what has eroded heterosexual marriages has nothing to do with a secret gay agenda and/or conspiracy spearheaded by evil men and women dressed in rainbow-hooded robes like the Ku Klux Klan in the '50 and '60s. Unlike many same-gender-loving men and women who have left the church because of crazy statements like these (heralded from pulpits across America) and attitudes that demean and demoralize them as individuals, I have decided to remain in the ranks. So I know first-hand that the reason Bishop so-and-so and prophetess so-and-so got divorced had absolutely nothing to do with my attraction to another man. I didn’t live in their house! I did not attend their lavish wedding! I certainly didn’t secretly carry on an illicit sexual affair behind the scenes with either of them. And I was not the confidant they confided in when things began to crumble in their marriages and the erotic flame burned out in their sex lives. Nor was I the person they sought when they made their decision to marry and needed marriage counseling, although after observing the horrific aftermath of their failed marriage, perhaps I should have been!

Melissa Etheridge made a profound statement when she questioned the U.S. government’s right to extract taxes from her (a hard-working same-gender-loving U.S. Citizen), yet deny her the right to marry the person she loves. Well, this is not something that is new to me as an African-American. For years, this same so-called Democratic government has denied people of color across this great nation their equal rights, all the while working them to death to build their mansions, work on their plantations, prosper their businesses by stealing their inventions and creative ideas, and pad their financial portfolios. Then one day, a Black man by the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from Atlanta, Georgia, got fed up and said “Enough”!!! Dr. King radically galvanized a generation in a time when everything was against them! People took to the streets with signs in hand – much like the LGBTQ community has done and began to demand what is due them as law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

It was not an easy battle; change never is – something I learned as a Black youth growing up in Southeast Los Angeles, during this very era! Many were left bleeding and decapitated as their dead bodies were left swinging from trees side to side, blown by the winds of hatred and discrimination, the result of being horribly disfigured and murdered. Some were maimed, having lost limbs like legs or arms and mothers kicked in the stomach – never again able to bear children after brutal beatings. But something in them kept them from turning back even in the face of insurmountable odds until equal rights was something that all Americans of all ethnicities – from the East Coast to the West Coast, from the northern borders of this country to the very southern borders of America – could enjoy and stand up and proudly boast about.

So no, I won’t shut up or go quietly into the night and stop protesting just because certain conservative Evangelical pastors and redneck politicians threaten to withdraw their support from the President of the United States (Barack Obama) in future elections. I appreciate the fact that Obama is working diligently behind the scenes to ensure that one day, I can walk down the aisle in the state that I live in and say “I do” to the man I love; and be able to avail myself to the same healthcare benefits and federal benefits and provisions that heterosexuals who enter a similar union are afforded.”

I have one question to ask, especially to the so-called defenders of Civil Rights in the African-American community: What if during the Civil Rights Era, some misguided soul who headed a powerful political organization or government had the gall to stand up and say, “I think that equal rights for African-Americans should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of inequality and discrimination”?! Oopps! Well, actually, someone did say something similar to that! Governor George Wallace made numerous outlandish statements so crazy until it would make the hair stand up on the back of the necks of most Americans today, if I shared them with you now! And here is the knock-out thing: When he made those outlandish statements, millions of white Americans across the country cheered him and supported his backward discriminatory way of thinking the same way many do when spiritual leaders mount the pulpit and bash gay people. Had it not been for President Kennedy intervening by appointing his brother Robert as Attorney General to deal with these issues, something that may have ultimately cost him his life, the Civil Rights Movement’s stunning achievements may have been stymied and/or hindered for who knows how long; and countless more lives of innocent African-Americans would have been beaten and killed in public view, all to preserve the status quo.

Now because I hate to complain about problems and never offer solutions (something I will do at the conclusion of this article), I must address another stunning revelation I learned about just yesterday. Apparently, there are 170,000 inmates in the state of California in a prison system designed to service at the most 100,000. You might ask, Well, how could we let this happen? I will never forget the night I sat comfortably in my living room and watched a popular news program that clearly exposed one of the most powerful unions in America’s attempt to continue to hold hundreds of thousands of inmates across the country in institutions – not because they had done some extremely hideous, unforgiveable crime, but because it was big business. When any governor or top official tries to combat this injustice and craft new legislation to release non-violent offenders, this same powerful union exerts its powerful financial and political muscle by using well-known law enforcement figures like puppets to frighten the American public by informing them via newscasts, Internet, and infomercials that their children are going to be raped or molested if these criminals are released and that most certainly, their homes will be ransacked in the middle of the night by some illiterate Black or Latino man and that the Police Department will be overwhelmed by increased crime if these horrible people -- by the way, many of them your fathers, mothers, boyfriends, girlfriends, sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, cousins, uncles, and aunts -- are released. Millions, if not billions, are being misappropriated in order to care for incarcerated people yearly, causing severe cutbacks in educational funding, programs that benefit the growing elderly population, AIDS organizations servicing an increasingly number of our youth, social security, and many other much needed social programs. This misappropriation of funds now threatens to annihilate even welfare! And year after year, we allow their captors to entice us into believing that it would be better to lay off teachers, caregivers, city employees, and public servants than to release people who are incarcerated who shouldn’t be there in the first place. Is it any wonder why the Bible urges us to “Awake oh thou that sleepest?!”

Yet, where are our pastors, the shepherds, and religious leaders we hold in high esteem and do everything to protect and cater to? In Washington, D.C. or in Sacramento, California, fighting to deny hard-working people the right to marry the person of their choice. And what is their answer to the AIDS pandemic that is ravaging their ministries and claiming the lives of millions of their parishioners and the millions of men and women who are being herded like cattle in prison institutions, while unions and the private sector get filthy rich, the result of their incarceration? That is easy to answer. Channel over $45 million of their parishioners' tithes and offerings to combat Proposition 8 when many churches don’t even have a food pantry to feed the poor or a church bus to transport its elderly to and from church, no effective counseling programs for sexually-active teens to keep them from having children out of wedlock or prevent them from contracting AIDS or STDs, and no marriage preparation programs that deal with real issues for couples considering marriage.

I have heard it said time and time again by pastors all over America: “We must sound a trumpet in Zion. The very foundation of our Christian faith is under attack because the gays are getting married! – forgetting that Jesus said, “On this rock I build my church and nothing can prevail against it, not even the gates of hell!”

I say we must sound several trumpets in Zion and tell the pastors, bishops, priests, and leaders of our flocks to stop acting like Adam and Eve who blamed each other, the tempter, and even the Creator for their transgressions and shortcomings and face up to the facts. The facts are that they have been acting like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day who criticized Him for feeding His disciples because they were hungry on the Sabbath day because of some distorted legalistic ritual they thought was Biblically correct – all because He allowed them to eat in the cornfields. Yes, by all means, “Let's sound a trumpet in Zion and send those same pastors packing back to their seminaries and theological educational institutions so that they can learn the true meaning of scriptures like these, and not listen to another sermon or heed their instruction until they do:

“Therefore, If any woman or man is in Christ Jesus (including same-gender-loving people), he or she is a new Creation…. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Jesus cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:14)

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever (the most universal inclusive word in the Bible) believes in him shall not perish, but they shall have everlasting life!” (John 3:16)

And lastly, someone please inform them that the best way to shore up the institution of marriage is to spend generous amounts of time with their congregations and couples who are considering marriage and not be MIA (missing in action) because they are down at the courthouse protesting. Rather, teaching couples how to be good husbands and wives and how to walk in love and integrity from the Word of God. Jesus said that what convinces the world more than anything that we are His disciples is that we walk in love and live lives of integrity before people, not misappropriate $45 million fighting a proposition that will ultimately be overturned, which by the way, had it passed, would have generated countless millions of much needed revenue over the next ten years into California’s impoverished economy. Wisdom would surely encourage our spiritual leaders to readjust their priorities and start addressing the real issues that plague their congregations and communities and to stop being remiss in their responsibilities as leaders and shepherds.

Mason is known for his breakthrough revolutionary book, Love Won't Let Me Be Silent, that is becoming a testament for many gays and lesbians struggling with their sexuality and the need to come out to their family and friends. What started out as a self-published nonfiction book has now become a literary phenomenon consistently earning him numerous literary nominations; while at the same time, gaining a place of reverence in the hearts and minds of millions of readers -- both men and women worldwide.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

More Americans Say 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' For Gays Should Be Repealed

Repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the US military now seems more likely. A new poll shows a solid majority of Americans say 'don't ask, don't tell' is discriminatory. Those in uniform are more likely to favor keeping the law, but that's changing too.

By Gordon Lubold Staff writerFebruary 10, 2010

Washington — A small majority of Americans say Congress should repeal the law barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. But a much higher majority – 66 percent – agrees that the law is a form of discrimination, according to a new poll.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted earlier this month found that 57 percent of Americans believe the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that bars homosexuals from serving openly in the military should be repealed. Another 36 percent of Americans say it should not be repealed. Yet 66 percent of the 2,617 registered voters polled agree that not allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military is a form of discrimination; 31 percent say it is not.

The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points, was released Wednesday.

“By a solid margin, American voters say go ahead and allow gays to openly serve in the military,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in a statement.

Pentagon Considers Impact of Repeal

The poll comes as the Pentagon contemplates repeal of the law, implemented in 1993.

President Obama has said he wants to remove the ban. But the first step in that direction didn’t occur until last week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the creation of a task force to look at how the ban would be lifted.

Within the next 45 days, the task force will report preliminary findings with an eye to how to halt the discharge of service members who are outed by a third party. Mr. Gates has made it clear that it could take a year or so to change “don’t ask, don’t tell” – assuming Congress repeals the law. Mullen stunned many when he told a Senate panel that repeal was “the right thing to do.”

Change inevitable?

Military officials at the Pentagon have begun to see the inevitability of change, even if it remains unclear what that change would look like or how it would be implemented.

Many top leaders are more amenable to changing the law, a reflection of the change in society since the law went into effect in 1993. With some exceptions, junior troops are much more likely to shrug at any change that could occur, military officials say anecdotally.

A poll in Military Times suggests that while opposition to repeal remains among service members, the level of opposition is dropping.

Changing Attitudes In The Military

In the latest poll taken by Military Times, part of an independent newspaper chain owned by Gannett, the percentage of active-duty respondents who oppose repeal dropped from 63 percent in 2003 to 51 percent today, according to the survey, conducted between Nov. 11 and Nov. 30. Likewise, the number of active-duty respondents who favor repeal of the law grew from 24 percent in 2003 to 30 percent today.

The Military Times poll is not scientific; the newspaper e-mailed invitations to 45,000 subscribers and randomly inserted fliers in about 40,000 newsstand copies of the paper asking for readers to respond. About 8,200 readers, including National Guard, Reserve, and other readers, responded to the survey. Of those, the paper gleaned responses from about 3,000 active-duty military readers.

*******

I was serving in the military when this law was passed in 1993 and I remember at the time feeling a sense of relief that, "At least now I don't have to actively lie about the feelings I have... I won't be asked again." (As a part of maintaining my security clearance to work with nuclear weapons, I was routinely interviewed, and a part of that interview process included questioning about "homosexuality.")

At that time, I was still in deep denial about the realities of my heart and it would be another 10 years and a failed marriage before I would "Come out to myself," but I realized almost immediately back in 1993 that the situation had not changed for the better. Instead, the fears that I had internalized for my entire life up to that point had only been codified and legitimized under the Constitution that I had sworn to defend with my own life and that fact was a galling reality that stared me in the face every time I put on my uniform.

If anything, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" forced me even deeper into my "Closet of Self-Imposed Fear and Self-Loathing," and it only served to delay the day of freedom that finally came when I realized that, "I am as God intended me to be, a same gender loving man." The inevitable repeal of this egregious law that defies every principle which our Constitution supports will be a day of liberation not only for GLBT service men and women and veterans, but also for every GLBT person who does now or ever wanted to serve his or her country.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

I found this satirical short film from 2002 saddening, silly, and true... It embodied all the fears of internalized homophobia that torture men who can't accept the reality of their hearts. It also reminded me of Stephen Christopher Harris, not only because he suffers from similar fears, but also because one of his pastimes is keeping track of who is gay amongst the notable and the famous.

Of course Bert and Ernie are gay... And the world knows it...

"Bert and Ernie conduct themselves in the same loving, discreet way that millions of gay men, women and hand puppets do. They do their jobs well and live a splendidly settled life together in an impeccably decorated cabinet."

- "The Real Thing" by Kurt Andersen, 1980

"Bert and Ernie are two grown men sharing a house and a bedroom. They share clothes, eat and cook together and have blatantly effeminate characteristics. In one show Bert teaches Ernie how to sew. In another they tend plants together. If this isn't meant to represent a homosexual union, I can't imagine what it's supposed to represent."

- Reverend Joseph Chambers on his radio show, 1994

Even the official "denials" gives it away...

"Bert and Ernie, who've been on Sesame Street for 25 years, do not portray a gay couple, and there are no plans for them to do so in the future. They are puppets, not humans. Like all the Muppets created for Sesame Street, they were designed to help educate preschoolers. Bert and Ernie are characters who help demonstrate to children that despite their differences, they can be good friends."

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase that you may grow out of?

Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

Heterosexuals have histories of failure in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to heterosexuality in fear of rejection?

If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?

If your heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?

With whom have you discussed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me.

Why do people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

If you choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be what you are and keep it quiet?

How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, God-given homosexual potential?

Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted sex roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?

How can you enjoy a fully satisfying sexual experience or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex, when the obvious physical, biological, and temperamental differences between you are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a woman sexually, or vice-versa?

Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you, considering the menace of overpopulation?

There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you want to. Have you ever tried therapy?

A disproportionate number of criminals, welfare recipients, and other irresponsible or anti-social types are heterosexual. Why would you want to hire a heterosexual for a responsible position?

Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust other of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

Why are heterosexuals so promiscuous?

Why do you make a point of attributing heterosexuality to famous people? Is it to justify your own heterosexuality?

Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist/counselor to be objective and unbiased? Don't you fear that s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his/her own leanings?

Important Disclaimers

The written content of this blog is copyrighted and may not be reproduced, printed or page saved in any form without my express permission. The views and opinions expressed herein are my own and they are intended for mature audiences only.

With regard to images posted on this blog, I do not claim ownership over any images used herein unless otherwise expressly declared. These images remain the property of their respective owners. If you are the legitimate owner of any images used here and wish to have the images removed, please email me and I will remove them.

Regarding links displayed within this blog, I am neither responsible, nor do I have control over the content of any external websites to which readers may be directed.